Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

RBT/CC/15/297

NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

MR.BALIRAM KAMBLE

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. RBT/CC/15/297
 
1. NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY
D-302, BHAHR BUILDING, SECTOR 3, VASANT NAGAR, OPP.VITTHAL WAVE CLUB, VASAI (EAST)
DISTRICT-PALGHAR
MAHARASHTRA STATE
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER
2ND FLOOR, SADHANA HOUSE, BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWERS, 570, P.B. MARG, WORLI
MUMBAI-400 018
MAHARASHTRA STATE
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. H.K.BHAISE MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Mr.Baliram Kamble-Advocate
 
For the Opp. Party:
Mr. Alok Bhat-Advcoate
 
ORDER

PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has filed this complaint for return of his vehicle or to pay Rs.10 Lakhs for loss of the vehicle.  He has also prayed for compensation.  As there is delay in filing the complaint, he has filed application for condonation of delay.

2)                The opponent appeared and filed reply to the delay condonation application.  The opponent has opposed the application on the ground that the delay is not properly explained.

3)                Earlier, the complaint bearing No.CC/12/201 was dismissed on 21st November, 2013 as the complainant was not attending the Forum since long.  The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission directed this Forum to decide the application for delay condonation. Therefore, the old complaint is restored and numbered as RBT/CC/15/297. Today, the arguments of advocate for both the parties are heard.  After hearing the argument of the learned advocates for both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

Sr.No.

Points

Findings

1)

Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay ?

No

2)

Whether the complainant is entitled for delay condonation ?

No

3)

What Order ? 

As per final order

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :-In the complaint itself and in the application for delay condonation, the complainant has stated that the opponent has unlawfully and forcibly took the possession of vehicle on 13th March, 2010.  The complainant has stated that there is delay in filing the complaint therefore he has filed this application for delay condonation.  No reason is given in the application by the complainant for delay.  In the application, the complainant has simply stated that there is delay and the delay is not caused due to the fault of the complainant.  In the affidavit in support of the application also, no reasons are given by the complainant for delay.  There is specific provision i.e. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act to file the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action.  In the complaint as well as in the application, the complainant has specifically stated that the opponent took possession of the vehicle forcibly on 13th March, 2010.  The complaint is filed on 27th March, 2012 i.e. after two years from the date of cause of action.  No reasons are given by the complainant for delay in filing the complaint.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2011, in the case of V.K.Appliances –Versus- New India Assurance Company Limited, decided on 1st October, 2013, reported in reported in IV (2013) CPJ 419 (NC) has held that the complaint must be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. In para 4 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under :

Para 4 : In the instant case, if the delay  is condoned, the very purpose and Scheme of  the C P Act, 1986, shall stand defeated.  It must be borne in mind that C P Act, 1986,  envisages  summary  procedure  and has its own period of limitation. It is also  noteable  that day-to-day  delay  has not been explained,  in the present case.  Such  like  stories can be created at any time. The complainant  has put forward a lame excuse which hardly leaves any impact.

In para 5 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has discussed the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :

Para 5 : The Hon’ble Apex Court in  Kandimalla  Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., & Anr., 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) took  view  of the  observations made in case State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I),  (2009) CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191,  as under :-

12. Recently, in State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural  Industries – 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, this court, while dealing with the same provision, has held :-

“8.  It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer      Forum  to see  before  it  admits  the complaint  that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown.  The expression, ‘shall  not admit a complaint’  occurring in Section 24A  is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint  has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing.  In other   words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore,  the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside”.

In view of abovesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that the complaint must be filed within two years from the date of cause of action.  The delay can be condone if sufficient reason is given by the complainant.  In the instant complaint before us, in the complaint as well as in the application or in the affidavit, the complainant has not given any reason for delay.  Therefore, there is no ground to condone the delay. 

5)                Thus, the complaint is apparently barred by limitation.  There is no proper reason to condone the delay.  Hence, the application filed by the complainant for delay condonation deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

  1. The application filed by the complainant for codonation of delay is hereby rejected.
  2. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
  3. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
  4. Inform the parties accordingly.

 

Dictated & Pronounced on 24th November, 2015 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.K.BHAISE]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.